News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used.Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arraContact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)

Saturday, March 03, 2012

Romney Shows Momentum Winning Washington's Non Binding Caucuses

Mitt Romney has won Washington non-binding caucuses. The results were based on a nonbinding straw poll of participants in the caucuses. With 91% of caucuses reporting, Romney wins with 37 percent. Ron Paul was second with 25 percent; Rick Santorum 24 percent, and Newt Gingrich 11 percent. Washington State has 43 delegates and will hold County Conventions / Legislative District Caucus: Saturday 17 March - Saturday 21 April 2012 and then the State Convention: Wednesday 30 May - Saturday 2 June 2012. The anticipated delegate distribution is Romney 15 delegates, Paul 10 delegates, Santorum 10 delegates, Newt 5 delegates. The 3 remaining unassigned delegates.

The Spokesman Review identified that in Washington, caucuses are meetings for like-minded people. Today it was for Republicans. Since Washington doesn't register voters by party, the caucus attendee must say that he or she is a Republican and that they will not attend a Democratic caucus in April. A good visual of tonight's results is below:

When will Obama Crack In Public?

Mychal Massie

by Mychal Massie, WND: At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, “Get used to it” – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high fuel prices were having on his family, to “get a more fuel-efficient car.”

The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington. And instead of making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they’re spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more golf.

Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit the first lady of the United States. The Obamas have behaved in every way but presidential – which is why it’s so offensive when we hear Obama say, in order “to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don’t have to sacrifice the America we believe in.”

The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family who are behaving as if they’ve never had two nickels to rub together – and now, having hit the mother lode, they’re going to spend away their feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers’ expense.

Obama continues to exhibit behavior that, at best, can be described as mobocratic and, at worst, reveals a deeply damaged individual. In a February 2010 column, I asked, “Is Obama unraveling?” I wrote that it was beginning to appear the growing mistrust of him and contempt for his policies was beginning to have a destabilizing effect on him.

At that time, I wrote that not having things go one’s way can be a bitter pill, but reasonable people don’t behave as he was behaving. He had insulted Republicans at their luncheon, where he had been an invited guest. I had speculated that was, in part, what had led him to falsely accuse Supreme Court justices before Congress, the nation and the world, during the 2010 State of the Union address.

It appeared, at that time, as if he were “fraying around the emotional edges.” That behavior has not abated – it has become more pronounced. While addressing the nation, after being forced to explain the validity of his unilateral aggression with Libya, America witnessed a petulant individual scowling and scolding the public for daring to insist he explain his actions.

But during an afternoon speech to address the budget/debt, he took his scornful, unstable despotic behavior to depths that should give the nation cause for concern. Displaying a dark psychopathy more representative of an episode of “The Tudors” television series, he invited Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to sit in the front row during his speech and then proceeded to berate both Ryan and Ryan’s budget-cutting plan. Even liberal Democrats were put off by the act. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough questioned the sanity of Obama’s actions.

Today, criticism is coming from all sides. A senior Democrat lawmaker said, “I have been very disappointed in [Obama], to the point where I’m embarrassed that I endorsed him. It’s so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?” (“Democrats’ Disgust with Obama,” The Daily Beast, April 15, 2011)

Steve McCann wrote: Obama’s speech “was chock full of lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering. It must be said that [he] is the most dishonest, deceitful and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed” (“The Mendacity of Barack Obama,” AmericanThinker.com, April 15, 2011).

McCann continued: “[His] performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call [him] what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation [against] those who oppose his radical agenda only add to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by sycophants around him. …”

With these being among the kinder rebukes being directed at Obama, and with people becoming less intimidated by his willingness to use race as a bludgeon, with falling poll numbers in every meaningful category and an increasingly aggressive tea-party opposition – how much longer before he cracks completely?

The coming months of political life are not going to be pleasant for Obama. Possessed by a self-perceived palatine mindset, that in his mind places him above criticism, how long before he cracks in public? Can America risk a man with a documented track record of lying and misrepresenting truth as a basic way of life, who is becoming increasingly more contumelious?Tags:Mychal Massie, explains, Barack Obama, lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

“Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership… wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press Saudi Arabia to boost its production in case Iran cuts supply. ‘The SPR is not as good a solution as the Saudi solution...’”(“Worried Dems Pressing Obama On Gas Prices,” The Hill, 2/28/12)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):“These skyrocketing fuel prices are directly linked to the global energy market…To address this situation, I urge the State Department to work with government of Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production…” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sec. Clinton, 2/26/12)

Study of Swollen Government Spending

Bankrupting America: Each time Americans get a paycheck, a portion of it is siphoned off to fund the government. Most have just come to accept this as an unfortunate reality. But do you ever wonder where that money is actually going?

Our latest infographic looks at where your tax dollars were spent in 2011, and breaks them down into easy to understand diagrams. From the big-ticket items, to the relatively small expenditures and everything in between, we show just where your tax dollars end up.

[Click Image To Enlarge]

As the House and Senate debate the President’s budget, let’s take a step back from the rhetoric and look at the facts. For the government’s last fiscal year, which ended on September 31, 2011, we break down spending into easy to understand diagrams and give you some real world examples of what you could buy with $3.6 trillion dollars. That is if you are ok with being $1.3 trillion dollars in debt. View our fact sheet on last fiscal year’s spending. Tags: Bankrupting America, Congress, debt, deficit, Fiscal Year 2011, house of representatives, Senate, spending, wasteful spendingTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

“Our national debt per person now equals nearly $45,000, more than Greece. The president’s budget plan, sent to Congress, would grow our total debt by another $11 trillion. By the end of ten years, interest payments will be $850 billion annually, $200 billion more than we will be spending on defense…President Obama’s budget plan would bleed this nation dry—taking from the private sector to fund the public sector until both have been led to financial ruin.” ~ Ranking Member Sessions

Today in Washington, D.C. - March 2, 2012:
House and Senate is not in session today and will return on Monday. As note in an update yesterday, Senate Democrats voted to killSen. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) amendment that would have restored the rights of religious institutions to not be forced to pay for things like contraception coverage that violate their religious beliefs. Democrats lined up against religious liberty and in favor of a mandate requiring religious employers to pay for insurance coverage than includes contraception issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius authorized by President Obama’s unpopular health care law.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell expressed, “Most of us probably assumed that if religious liberty were ever seriously challenged in this country, we could always expect a robust bipartisan defense of it at least from within the Congress itself. But unfortunately that’s not the situation we find ourselves in. Democrats have evidently decided that they’d rather defend a President of their own party, regardless of the impact of his policies. So rather than defend the First Amendment in this particular case, they’ve decided to engage in a campaign of distraction as a way of obscuring the larger issue at stake here.”

The Wall Street Journal editors have pointed out the outrageous lengths Democrats went to try to change the issue from one of protecting religious liberty to a fantasy attack on women’s health. “Nancy Pelosi called it ‘devastating legislation’ and ‘the latest ploy in the Republican agenda of disrespecting the health of American women.’ Planned Parenthood claimed the ‘dangerous proposal’ would have allowed ‘your boss’ - yes, yours - to decide ‘which prescriptions you can get filled and which medical procedures you can have,’ including cancer screening, maternity care and AIDS medications. It sounds medieval. But in fact, the provision that the Senate tabled yesterday would merely have restored the status quo of one month ago. Those were the dark ages before the Obama Administration overturned traditional conscience protections with its birth-control insurance mandate under the Affordable Care Act.”

Democrats’ distortions about the vote have been so egregious, The Washington Post’s Fact Checker awarded “Three Pinocchios” to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) rhetoric on the subject, writing, “Schumer’s comments ooze hyperbole and alarmist language. Beyond that, he has to rely on legalistic interpretations to defend them. As for the senator’s slippery slope argument, we find that accepting such reasoning is a bit of a slippery slope itself. It’s a favorite of politicians who want to draw loose connections rather than debate the merits of a proposal as it stands. Overall, Schumer earns three Pinocchios for his comments about the Blunt Amendment.”

The WSJ editors explain, “The amendment had nothing to do with a ‘ban’ on contraception, or any of the other delusions and distortions of the left. The real issue is that the ObamaCare mandate requires employers, including religious schools and hospitals, to buy coverage that may violate their moral beliefs. The Blunt amendment would merely have let those religious-affiliated institutions provide coverage without paying for care that violates their religious conscience.”

In other news, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced this week that it had identified over 1,500 duplicative, fragmented, and inefficient programs in the federal government—on which more than $400 billion is spent each year. A Budget Committee summary of the report may be found here.

Many Republican Senators have increased pressure on the Administration to end the president’s domestic energy blockade. In a letter, Sen. Jeff Sessions explained that America has potentially more recoverable domestic reserves than almost any nation on earth and that “powerful action to harness America’s untapped oil and gas resources,” in addition to reducing prices, “would also provide millions of Americans with good-paying, private-sector jobs; produce substantial royalties for local, state and federal governments; reduce our enormous trade imbalance; and put an end to our huge wealth transfer from America to competitors overseas.” Sessions analyzed the administration’s approach in a statement yesterday responding to the president’s “defeatist” New Hampshire speech: “the Obama Administration has made clear that they would rather tax Americans and domestic producers to pay for more Solyndras… than utilize our natural resources to enrich the country and grow the private sector.”

In closing out this week, it should be noted that numerous House members continued to address and express their frustration with various agendas and actions by members and departments of the Obama Administration. Of noted interest was by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) who asked in an article on RedStateWhy is Obama Bailing Out Greece? And Why is the MSM Covering Up For Him? She identified, "
The mainstream media has given a lot of coverage to the debt crisis and the bailout bonanza it’s unleashed – first the Greek bailout, then the Irish and Portuguese bailouts, then Greece again. But the MSM conveniently forgets to mention two important things: the role of the International Monetary Fund in funding these bailouts (one-third of the cost, actually), and the fact that America is the largest contributor to the IMF.

"This month, the European Union unveiled its umpteenth bailout of Greece, bringing the total cost of that bailout alone to $500 billion (or more than the entire Greek economy). That doesn’t include the cost of the Ireland and Portugal bailouts (combined total: $259 billion), and the growing likelihood that Spain and Italy will need bailouts too. . . . 'At a time when America is borrowing over $1 trillion every single year, why are we borrowing more money – much of it from China – to bail out Europe?'

"Even the White House understands the political potency of this issue. At last week’s White House press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked whether the Administration would come to Congress to request more funding for the IMF. Earnest said “further contributions” to the IMF are “off the table.” But that’s misleading. Every month, the IMF is using “further contributions” from you – the taxpayer – through America’s $68 billion IMF quota plus a separate $100 billion line of credit called the “New Arrangements to Borrow” (NAB) – for the European bailouts. Those bailouts could be stopped by the Administration, but they refuse to take action. Why? Because they support the bailouts (albeit quietly). And the media won’t call them out on it. And so, it’s time for Congress to take action to protect your tax money.

Rep. Rodgers identified that she has introduced H.R. 2313, that would repeal the Administration’s $100 billion line of credit to the IMF. She identified that "Only $7 billion of that $100 billion has been committed, so we have up to $93 billion to protect and designate for deficit reduction. Every day, that money is in jeopardy of being committed by the IMF, so we don’t have time to waste. And should Spain or Italy need a bailout, there is no question that most of the $100 billion will disappear, and quickly."

H.R. 2313 has 91 cosponsors. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced companion bill S. 1276 – which has 25 Republican cosponsors. McMorris said, At the very least, we should have a public debate about whether or not America should be involved in these European bailouts. And the Administration should be honest about its support for them. ... I will continue to oppose American involvement in a European TARP. We cannot afford to take the 'too big to fail' philosophy to a global level. The only thing 'too big to fail' is America itself."

“You don’t ‘accommodate’ religious liberties, you respect them. That’s why they are enshrined in the Constitution. Those Constitutional protections should prevent the President from trampling the conscience rights of Americans and religious institutions who hold a strong belief that contraceptives, sterilizations and medicines that cause abortions are wrong. Clearly, however, these Constitutional protections are not enough." ~ Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) [US Senate Floor, Feb. 28, 2012]

Update 12:20 PM: The Senate voted 51-48 to table the Blunt amendment to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience and to allow the law's religious liberty violations to continue. The Democrats majority supported infringement on religious liberty. ANOTHER REASON TO REPEAL OBAMACARE!
-------------Today in Washington, D.C. - March 1, 2012:
The Senate resumed consideration of S. 1813, the highway bill. At 11 AM, the Senate began a vote on Sen. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) amendment that would protect the rights of conscience of religious institutions, preventing them from being forced to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs. Additional votes on amendments are possible today.

This morning, the House passed (339-80) S. 1134 (HR 1134) the St. Croix River Crossing Project with appropriate mitigation measures to promote river values. The House also passed (417-1) H. Res. 556 which condemns the Government of Iran for its continued persecution, imprisonment, and sentencing to death of Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani on the charge of apostasy.

This morning, senators are voting on Sen. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) amendment, which would block the mandate in President Obama’s unpopular health care law that would force religious employers to fund health care plans that provide contraceptive services in violation of their religious beliefs. Ever since Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that religious employers would not be fully exempted from the mandate in Democrats’ health care law, Senate Republicans have been blasting the Obama administration for its assault on religious liberty and calling for a vote to roll back these regulations.

As Politico wrote at the beginning of February, Senate Republicans . . . stepped up their assault on the White House’s politically volatile contraceptive coverage mandate, vowing to find some way of striking it if the administration didn’t roll back the rules itself. Using unusually strong language in a floor speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the new policy ‘abhorrent’ and said the administration had crossed a ‘dangerous line’ with its decision to require employers to offer birth control for free as a preventive health benefit in health plans, a decision that was part of the implementation of the 2010 health care reform law.”Tags:Washington, D.C. Us Senate, US House, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

However, "the straw poll portion of the caucuses, which has no direct bearing on how the state’s 29 delegates will be awarded."

These February caucuses and non-binding straw polls were just the first step in Wyoming's delegate selection process. County-level delegates to the national convention in Tampa will be chosen at county conventions on March 6-10, and statewide delegates will be selected at the state GOP convention in April.

However, at this point in time, it is estimated that this Wyoming "soft pledge" of delegates would be assigned as follows: Mitt Romney 10 delegates, Rick Santorum 8 delegates, Ron Paul 6 delegates, Newt Gingrich 2 delegates and 3 delegates not pledged. If candidates dropout before the final delegate commitment at the Wyoming conventions, the alignment of delegates could change. In the 2008 Presidential Race, Mitt Romney received 12 delegates of the then 14 delegates allowed for Wyoming.Tags:GOP, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Wyoming, 2012, caucusesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Conservative Meteoroid Andrew Breitbart Passes On At Age 43

Andrew Breitbart
Pix Via Wikepedia

"How do you save the world, you want to know? Wade into the fire. Don't be afraid to engage in the culture war that we're now waging. And show no fear. I repeat, show no fear. That's how you save the world." ~ Andrew Breitbart

Bill Smith, Editor: A meteor has passed out of view. A meteor is the visible path of a meteoroid that has entered the Earth's atmosphere. In the past few years, I and numerous others were both awed and stunned by the meteor we saw flashing across the political conservative skyline. Yes, we already had the shining stars in the conservative constellation - the steady conservative voices of the past whose light still shines on us even thought the star has ceased to be. And we have the present mature voices of the "great one," "elrusbo," and many others.

But, wow! We were stunned by the former liberal convert who had become a meteoroid leaving a bright visible path across the conservative horizon. Andrew Brietbart, was to many cool, hip, bold, and braggadocios. He had a way of saying things that shocked and boldly challenged people on the left and the right. He was a concert from liberalism and did not hide his light under a basket. He was Mr. Hollywood sharing his rage and insights into the progressive liberal mindset.

In 2009, when Academy Award Winner Jon Voight expressed his conservative opinion on politics and was then maligned by the extreme left and even those considered to be communists as having used "hate speech" against President Obama, the owner and publisher of Big Government, Andrew Breitbart penned the following "The left will flail as they attempt to marginalize him and diminish his stellar reputation and award-winning career. His analysis of how President Obama got elected will eventually be the accepted truth once sober and dispassionate journalists re-enter the mainstream media. I predict there will be more 'Jon Voights' in the next election cycle, thanks to his courageous, trailblazing spirit."

Well, on reflection, one of those "Jon Voights" with "courageous, trailblazing spirit" was Andrew Breitbart. In the same year, he broke the ACORN scandal and faced lawsuits which failed as the truth about ACORN was exposed.

Forbes reported that Andrew Brietbart died of this morning just after midnight. Breitbart collapsed while walking near his home. A neighbor saw him fall and called paramedics, and his father in law, Orson Bean, stated that Breitbart had suffered from heart problems in the past. Forbes further reports:

He . .. joined Matt Drudge in producing the powerful Drudge Report back in the 1990s. He later met Arianna Huffington and helped her launch her eponymous website.

He did far more than just link to the work of others, however. His controversial investigations of Rep. Anthony Weiner and Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod led both to resign. . . .

Andrew Breitbart founded BigGovernment.com, BigPeace.com, BigJournalism.com and BigHollywood.com. He was described by Maggie Thornton in her tribute today as a "baldly straight-talking conservative warrior."

Andrew rising star of influence made him a much sought after speaker. And while many of now recall his words and often crazy antics which makes us smile and his passionate defense of conservatives attacked by the left, we must forget he was also a father and and husband.

Having been at several events in the last three years at which Andrew attended and spoke, I noted that he sometimes brought one of his children with him. In 2011, Andrew attended the the Smart Girl Summit in St. Louis, Missouri. Instead of opting for some 5 star hotel away from the convention, Andrew liked being where the action was at for events. Many of us recall his willingness to address even Occupy groups. Well on this same weekend, the Cardinals were playing at home which means rooms are usually sold out. Somehow his room reservation at the event hotel was mistakenly cancelled. When my wife and I arrived for the summit, I noted Andrew who was taller than everyone around him was waiting in very long line hoping in hopes to get a room.

I waded through the line to ask why he was in this long line. He laughed and shared what had happened and then introduced his son. During the entire event, even when surrounded by a crowds, Andrew was always aware of where his son was. Therefore in closing, let us remember the man and not the meteoroid.

Andrew Breitbart was born February 1, 1969 in Los Angeles, California. He was the adopted son of Gerald and Arlene Breitbart. He lived his life there and died today March 1, 2012 in the city of his birth. He was a father of four and the husband of Susannah. Our prayers are for his family, friends, and those who feel his absence. We were privileged to have met and to have been encouraged and challenged by Andrew's unwillingness to concede the loss of America to progressive socialists. He died as he lived, loving the United States America.Tags:Andrew Breitbart, columnist, conservative activist, dead, age 43To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

February 2012 Porker of the Month: Rep. Emanuel Cleaver

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)Porker of the Month

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) February 2012 Porker of the Month for remarking that President Obama's fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget prematurely "turn[s] off the spigot completely." This comment is entirely disassociated with reality as President Obama's budget projects deficits above $500 billion each year through FY 2022. CAGW President Tom Schatz commented, "Despite the petering out of 2009 stimulus funds, which were pedaled as utterly essential to job growth, the economy sputters and unemployment lingers at record highs...On behalf of taxpayers, we at CAGW would like to suggest that Rep. Cleaver and his congressional allies could use a good round of reality-based, behavior modification therapy.” For comments that border on delusional and claiming that President Obama’s debt-expanding, spending-heavy 2013 budget proposal amounts to turning off the spending spigot and killing America’s economic recovery, Rep. Cleaver is the February, 2012 Porker of the Month. Read more about the Porker of the Month.Tags:Citizens Against Government Waste, CAGW, Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri, US Representative, February, 2012, Porker of the Month, President Obama, budge, deficits To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Ginsburg Likes Use of Foreign Law

by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has proved again why she doesn't belong on the U.S. Supreme Court. She really doesn't like our U.S. Constitution, which she swore to uphold and defend, and she probably would like to rewrite it with input from various foreign laws and constitutions.

On a junket to Egypt in January where the rebels are trying to figure out how to set up a government, she gave her advice. "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," and she suggested using South Africa's constitution as a model rather than ours.

Ginsburg also urged the Egyptians to consult Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights. "Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?" The South African and Canadian courts have both approved same-sex marriage.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
Our Constitution, which has endured for more than two centuries and is the longest lasting Constitution in the world, states clearly that it is "the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby." The Constitution also requires all judicial officers to "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."

When Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg in 1993, her views were already well known due to her extensive work as a feminist attorney for the ACLU. She had a shocking paper trail that betrayed her as a radical, doctrinaire feminist, far out of the mainstream.

As the old adage says, "would that mine enemy had written a book." Ginsburg did write a book called "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," which she co-authored in 1977 with another feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010.

Published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" was the source of the claim widely made in the 1970s that there were 800 federal laws that "discriminate" on account of sex. The 230-page book was written to identify those laws and to recommend the specific changes demanded by the feminists in order to conform to the "equality principle," for which Ginsburg was the leading advocate in Supreme Court gender cases of the 1970s.

Here are some of the extremist concepts from the Ginsburg book that could have made hilarious entertainment for television viewers of her confirmation hearings. That didn't happen because the Senators didn't' have the nerve to question her.

Draft women and give them affirmative action for military assignments. "Supporters of the equal rights principle firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women. . . . The need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services." (p.218)

Declare the traditional family obsolete. "It is a prime recommendation of this report that all legislation based on the breadwinning husband [and] dependent, homemaking wife pattern be recast using precise functional description in lieu of gross gender classification." (p.212)

Have government take over child care. "The increasingly common two-earner family pattern should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care." (p.214)

Legalize prostitution. "Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy." (p. 97

The Mann Act, which prohibits the transportation of women and girls for prostitution or any other immoral purpose "is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates." (pp. 98-99)

Sex-integrate the prisons. "Perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected." (p. 101)

Sex-integrate the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because, "while ostensibly providing 'separate but equal' benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles [and] should consider a name change to reflect extension of membership to both sexes." (pp. 145-146, 147)

There is no excuse for the Senators' failure to interrogate Ruth Bader Ginsburg about such nonsense when her nomination was considered. So now we are stuck with a Supreme Court Justice who thinks it is OK to recognize foreign law and, who knows, use of Sharia may be next. Shame on the Senators who voted 96 to 3 to confirm Ginsburg.

The explanation for the Senators' failure is obvious. The gentlemen Senators were too polite to treat feminists like the men they say they want to be.

That is why I subtitled my latest book "What Conservative Women Know and Men Can't Say." I wanted to say "What Men Don't Dare Say" but the publisher vetoed that.

The whole point of Senate hearings is to verify that judicial nominees will be faithful to their oath to support the Constitution. No nominee who toys with foreign law can truthfully pass the test. Tags:Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, SCOTUS, Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Foreign Law, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

ExxonMobil's $72 billion contribution to the U.S. economy in 2011

Dr. Bill Smith, Editor: While the present administration discouraged and made excuses for not opening American's Resources which would benefit Americans and the American economy, it has also practiced class warfare and has undertaken efforts to demean, excessively regulate, and even punish businesses and various industries that are "an asset to U.S. economic growth" and benefit greatly to the American economy. They have also invested our dollars and borrowed debt in failing business ventures rather than allowing the free market to work without government interference.

Now, consider the fact that this administration is also using the income created by taxes, duties and royalties paid by businesses, industry and individuals taxpayers to carry out efforts that demean, interfere, and over regulate the very people, businesses and industries that are paying the Government's bills with real not borrowed dollars. The present administration pushes negative and destructive agendas ("false flags") which pit people and groups against each other while tearing at the fabric of commerce and our economy which has bolstered the lives of the American people as a whole.

I am pleased to see ExxonMobil sharing with the public their contribution to the U.S. economy. I think you will find the facts impressive. Please share the following with others.Ken Cohen, ExxonMobil Perspectives: Some in Washington would have you believe that because companies like ExxonMobil are profitable, we are “taking from” the U.S. economy, rather than contributing to it.

But the facts prove otherwise. Last year, while ExxonMobil’s operating earnings in the U.S. were $9.6 billion, our total contribution to the U.S. economy was $72 billion. That is how much ExxonMobil spent in the United States on things like taxes, salaries, returns to our investors and money paid to other businesses and industries to keep our U.S. operations running.

In other words, for every dollar we earned in the U.S., we contributed seven more dollars to the U.S. economy – to both governments and individual Americans.
Here are the details. In 2011, ExxonMobil paid approximately:

$29 billion to our investors in the form of dividends and share buybacks. Investors of oil and gas companies include teachers, government workers and other public pension holders, as well as the millions of Americans who invest in IRAs or mutual funds.

$19 billion in goods and services related to running our U.S. production, manufacturing and office facilities, including payroll to our more than 30,000 U.S. employees.

$12 billion in capital spending, which goes to contractors, construction companies, raw materials and other spending on goods and services related to our U.S. oil, natural gas and chemicals activities.

$12 billion to the U.S. government (local, state and federal) in the form of taxes and duties.

All told, that’s $72 billion that governments can use to fund vital services, companies can use to hire workers, and investors can use to save for retirement.

Let me put ExxonMobil’s economic contribution into perspective: $72 billion is roughly equal to the total federal income taxes paid by all the residents of Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina combined, according to the latest data available from the IRS. It is slightly more than the total annual operating revenue of the U.S. Postal Service.

And that $72 billion is just ExxonMobil’s contribution. When you consider the fact that ExxonMobil accounts for only about 5 percent of total U.S. oil and natural gas production, you can get a sense of the scale of the economy-wide contribution made by America’s oil and gas industry. This money creates a ripple effect of economic activity that allows other people, industries and governments to spend, hire and invest.

Why am I making this point? Because right now the United States is engaged in a discussion about how to strengthen its balance sheet, and to be successful we will need to know the difference between our assets and our liabilities. Just like other successful American companies, ExxonMobil is an asset to U.S. economic growth.Tags:ExxonMobil. Contribution, Contribution to U.S. Economy, economy, the economy, Energy and the Economy, Tax Policy, dividends to investors, goods and services purchased, purchases, capital spending, U.S. taxes and duties, business, industryTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Today in Washington, D.C. - Feb 29, 2012 (Leap Day):
The Senate resumed consideration of S. 1813, the highway bill. Tomorrow, the Senate will vote on Sen. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) amendment that repeal of the administration’s birth-control mandate set to take effect August 1, 2012, and would protect the rights of conscience of religious institutions, preventing them from being forced to pay for things that violate their religious beliefs

Yesterday the House passed (234-69)H R 2117 Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. Today the House will consider HR 1837 San Joaquin River project.

What are the priorities for Democrats these days? Looking at their public statements, lower gas prices for Americans certainly don’t seem to be among them.

Politico reports, “The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe. Instead, DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget. But Americans need relief now, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) said — not high gasoline prices that could eventually push them to alternatives. . . . High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said. ‘But is the overall goal to get our price’ of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee. ‘No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,’ Chu replied.”

Recall, of course, that around the time President Obama picked Chu to be Energy Secretary, Chu was saying, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” In major European countries, that price works out to over $8 per gallon at the moment.

Meanwhile, Democrats continue to show no urgency to develop domestic energy supplies. Some, in fact, are busy demanding more energy production comes from Saudi Arabia. According to The Hill, “Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, last year pushed Obama to release oil from the [Strategic Petroleum Reserve], but now has taken a different tack. He wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press Saudi Arabia to boost its production in case Iran cuts supply. ‘The SPR is not as good a solution as the Saudi solution, and that’s for a couple of reasons. First, it’s limited,’ he said on CNBC Tuesday. ‘The Saudis and the Gulf states could produce an additional 2.8 million barrels of oil way on into the future. The SPR is somewhat limited. And the SPR works better when there’s an immediate crisis.’”

In other words, President Obama’s Energy Secretary, who previously expressed a desire to “boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” has declared his goal is not to get the price of gas down, and a leading Senate Democrat would prefer more energy production and jobs in Saudi Arabia to more in the United States. Those are pretty amazing priorities for Democrats.

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Yesterday, I came to the Senate floor and explained how the President’s ideological outlook and the policies that have grown out of it will only continue to drive up the cost of gasoline at the pump. And after I spoke, the President’s energy secretary seemed to confirm it when he told a congressional panel that the Department of Energy isn’t working to drive down the price of gas; they’re working to wean us off of it altogether — and that high gas prices add urgency to those efforts. In other words, they help.”

He added, “[O]nce again, here are the facts. This President continues to limit offshore areas to energy production and is granting fewer leases on public land for oil drilling. At the same time, he has encouraged other countries, like Brazil, to move forward with their own offshore drilling projects. The Obama administration continues to impose burdensome regulations on the domestic energy sector that will further drive up the cost of gasoline for the consumer. He’s proposed raising taxes on the energy sector, a move that the Congressional Research Service has said would drive up costs. And, as we all know, he flatly rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline — a potentially game-changing domestic energy project that promises not only greater independence from Middle Eastern oil, but tens of thousands of private sector jobs. All these policies help drive up the cost of gasoline and increase our dependence on foreign sources of oil.”Tags:leap day, 2012m Washington, D.C., US House, US Senate, high gas pricesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Michigan: Mitt Romney won his native birth state 41%; Rick Santorum 38%; Ron Paul 12% Newt Gingrich 7% with >99% reporting. 30 delegates proportionate shared: Estimate. Romney and Santorum 15 delegates each. Final delegate numbers to be determined. Note: Santorum appears to have won more counties in Michigan than Romney but Romney had the major population centers.

Canada Sides With USA While Democratics Side With The Middle-East

Today in Washington, D.C. - Feb. 28, 2012:
The Senate may vote this afternoon on amendments to the highway bill. S. 1813. Yesterday, the Senate confirmed (86-2) Margo Brodie as district judge for the Eastern District of New York.

The House yesterday agreed (388-3) to the Senate amendment to H.R. 347 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. No further conferencing action is now needed and the bill can be sent to the President.

The House is expected today to take up H.R. 665, the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2011. However, as of this post they have taken up and passed (244-171) H. Res. 563 providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2117) to prohibit the Department of Education from overreaching into academic affairs and program eligibility under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965." They then moved to H.R. 2117 and are currently voting on amendments to this proposed bill.

With gas prices spiking again, it’s amazing to watch the lengths to which Democrats will still go to prevent domestic energy production which could help lower prices, promote energy independence, and create jobs.

Yesterday afternoon, ARRA News shared about Sen. Charles Shumer's (D-NY) willingness to outsource more jobs to Saudi Arabia rather than increasing American Energy And American Jobs. We also noted that 79% of the hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian as was the mastermind behind the attack on America.

We need to increase American Energy And American Jobs!
And yet Democrats have blocked or delayed development of oil and gas production in the United States for years. Recall back in 2008 when gas prices spiked and Republicans were trying to pass a bill to expand responsible offshore drilling. Senate Democrats continually objected, including then-Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO), now Secretary of the Interior in the Obama administration. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell tried to get the bill passed, even asking if Democrats would agree to pass the bill only if gas prices reached $5 a gallon. Still, Salazar objected, calling the energy production the bill would have allowed, “a phantom solution.”

And now, we find Schumer asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to increase oil production instead of asking President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline which would increase oil supplies in the United States and allow the country to get more oil from our friends in Canada. Why aren’t Democrats asking for the shovel-ready American energy jobs the Keystone XL pipeline would create? This almost looks like a set-up!

Hillary Clinton has figuratively bowed more ways to Saudi Arabia than her boss has physically done and she is the fall-guy (or fall-woman) who killed the Keystone XL agreement with Canada on behalf of her boss President Obama verses the needs of America. A definite wuss, Hillary, who wanted to be President and seems to be on the shortlist for Vice President on Obama's 2012 ticket, appears ready to reside over a declining U.S. than a economically viable country producing its own oil.

However, the Canadians may care for the future of the USA more than President Obama or SOS Hillary Clinton. They understand the need for a strong North America. In a must-read editorial today, The Wall Street Journal notes that Transcanada, the company trying to build Keystone XL, has decided it can’t wait on Democrats and the Obama White House any longer and will begin building a portion of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas. Amazingly, President Obama, weeks after rejecting Transcanada’s permit to build the full pipeline, is now embracing this partial construction.

The WSJ editors write, “President Obama claims that voters aren't stupid about gas prices, but then they'd have to be to understand his energy policy. Try to parse the latest turn—make that backward triple somersault with two twists—in the Keystone XL pipeline saga. Yesterday TransCanada announced that it plans to break up the $7.6 billion project into several stand-alone parts, beginning immediately with a leg connecting Cushing, Oklahoma with the Gulf Coast. The original plan was to connect U.S. refiners with Alberta's oil sands crude and other Canadian and U.S. energy resources, but to mollify the environmental lobby Mr. Obama's State Department refused to issue the cross-border permits last month.

Now, apparently, it's time to mollify the Administration's union supporters that favored the thousands of jobs that the shovel-ready Keystone would have thrown off—not to mention the many not-so-stupid voters who've noticed Mr. Obama's antijobs politics. The White House immediately put out a statement claiming that ‘The President welcomes today's news’ and even that ‘we support the company's interest in proceeding with this project.’In other words, Mr. Obama in typical Obama political speak is simultaneously opposing and supporting the Keystone XL. The only problem is that he hasn't had a change of heart on the important part. The new side-project will help alleviate some of the bottlenecks around Cushing, but it doesn't do anything to get oil from Canada to the U.S., which is the main point of the pipeline.”

After watching all this Republican Leader McConnell yesterday expressed his frustration with the President Obama’s record on energy. “Over the past few weeks, the American people have begun to feel the painful effects of President Obama’s energy policy. Make no mistake: the rising price of gasoline isn’t simply the result of forces we can’t control. It is, to a large extent, the result of a vision that this President laid out even before he was elected to office. That vision was on clear display last week. As millions of Americans groaned at the rising cost of a gallon of gasoline, the President took to the microphones to talk about a far-off day when Americans might be able to use algae as a substitute for gas. And then, dusting off the same talking points Democrats have been using for decades, he claimed that there’s no short-term solution to the problem.”

McConnell explained, “This President continues to limit offshore areas to energy production and is granting fewer leases to public land for oil drilling. His administration is imposing regulations that will further drive up the cost of gasoline for the consumer. He wants to raise taxes on oil and gas –– a proposal that the Congressional Research Service tells us will increase the price of gas and send jobs overseas. And he alone rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline — a potentially game-changing domestic energy project that promises not only greater independence from Middle Eastern oil, but tens of thousands of private sector jobs. This President has done all these things — all while claiming that there aren’t any silver bullets. The fact is, this President’s policies are designed and intended to drive up energy prices, reduce domestic oil production, increase our demand on foreign sources of oil, and drive high-paying American jobs overseas. Forget the rhetoric: that’s this President’s record.”Tags:INSERT TAGSTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Monday, February 27, 2012

Outsourcing Energy Jobs? Chuck Schumer Willing To Sell Out America

When reading the following comments by Sen Charles Schumer, consider the following: "Of the nineteen hijackers who attacked this nation on September 11, 2001, fifteen were Saudi Arabian. Moreover, each and every one of the nineteen hijackers was personally chosen and provided with training and financing by yet another Saudi native – Osama bin Laden."

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):“These skyrocketing fuel prices are directly linked to the global energy market…To address this situation, I urge the State Department to work with government of Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production…” (Sen. Schumer, Letter To Sec. Clinton, 2/26/12)

“Gas prices continued their march toward $4 on Monday, rising for the 20th day in a row. The nationwide average rose to $3.70 a gallon, up one cent from a day earlier, according to the motorist group AAA. Only a month ago, the nationwide average was $3.39 a gallon…” (“Gas Prices Climb For 20th Day,” CNN Money, 2/27/12)

“The average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 18 cents over the past two weeks. That’s according to the Lundberg Survey of fuel prices, released Sunday...” (“18-Cent Increase In Gas In 2 Weeks,” The Associated Press, 2/27/12)Tags:energy jobs, outsourcing, foreign countries, gas prices, rising prices, Saudi Arabia, 9-11, Charles Schumer, A.F. Branco, political cartoon, satire or realityTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

by Don Seymour, US House Speaker Office: In yesterday’s speech defending his failed energy policies – under which gas prices have nearly doubled and are rising faster than ever – President Obama called for the kind of “all of the above” energy strategy long-championed by Republicans. But far from supporting “all of the above,” the Obama administration has spent more than three years blocking efforts to expand energy production and bring down gas prices, while pushing job-crushing tax hikes and taxpayer-backed loans to companies like Solyndra. Here’s a look:

The president even sought to pin the blame for rising prices elsewhere, citing instability in the Middle East as one example. But as this chart shows, the Obama administration simply hasn’t focused on reducing our dependence on foreign energy. In fact, energy production on federal lands has dropped by 11 percent.

MARCH 7, 2009 – ABC News says the White House is closely monitoring the expedited Solyndra loan project even as it was delaying new American energy production that would help make us less dependent on foreign energy. Gas is $1.94 a gallon.

JUNE 27, 2009 - President Obama urges the Senate to adopt House Democrats’ “cap and trade” national energy tax, the same one the president once admitted would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket.” Then-GOP Leader Boehner later said the bill “would raise electricity prices, increase gasoline prices, and ship American jobs to countries like China and India.” Gas is $2.50 a gallon.

MARCH 31, 2010 – Instead of opening new areas to energy exploration and development, President Obama blocks deep-ocean energy production on 60 percent of America’s Outer Continental Shelf. Gas is $2.80 a gallon.

DECEMBER 1, 2010 –The president re-imposes and expands the moratorium on offshore energy production. Gas is $2.86 a gallon.

JANUARY 2, 2011 – TIME reported that the Obama administration issued the first in a series of regulations on January 2 designed to unilaterally impose a national energy tax. Gas is $3.05 a gallon.

JUNE 21, 2011 - The White House opposes the House-passed Jobs & Energy Permitting Act that would unlock an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Gas is $3.65 a gallon.

NOVEMBER 8, 2011 – The Obama Administration releases a plan for a five-year moratorium on offshore energy production, placing “some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits,” according to the House Natural Resources Committee. Gas is $3.42 a gallon.

Today in Washington, D.C. - Feb. 27, 2012:
Both the House and Senate are back in session. The House will reconvene at 2pm and is expected to take up H.R. 347 Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 conference report for debate and a possible vote. The House passed this bill last year on Feb 28, 2011 and the US Senate passed the bill one year later on Feb 6, 2012 with variations from the House bill. Today, the House may also take up HR 1433 — Private property rights bill.

Later this week the House is expected to address the following bills:
HR 665 — Selling federal land
HR 3902 — D.C. special elections
HR 2117 — For-profit college regulations
HR 1837 — San Joaquin River

The Senate will reconvene at 2 PM today. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) will then be recognized for the annual reading of George Washington’s Farewell Address. At 4:30 PM the Senate will take up the nomination of Margo Brodie to be US Judge for the Eastern District of New York and vote at 5:30 on the nomination. During the week the Senate is expected to take up S 1813 — Surface transportation

Public Notice has called attention to the two committee hearings this week; the last two were highlighted by the House Republican Conference:

The House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power will hold a joint hearing on “FY 2013 EPA Budget" with Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb 28, 10 AM, 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building

As we approach the 2-year anniversary of President Obama’s unaffordable health care spending law in the coming month, new polling shows the law remains unpopular with Americans as reports continue that the law is failing to control costs. USA Today writes, “The health care overhaul that President Obama intended to be the signature achievement of his first term instead has become a significant problem in his bid for a second one, uniting Republicans in opposition and eroding his standing among independents. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of the nation’s dozen top battleground states, a clear majority of registered voters call the bill’s passage ‘a bad thing’ and support its repeal if a Republican wins the White House in November. Two years after he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act— and as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments about its constitutionality next month — the president has failed to convince most Americans that it was the right thing to do.”

According to the USA Today/Gallup Poll, 53% of voters in swing states say it was a “bad thing” that the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the law. Nationwide, 50% say the same. Seventy-two percent of swing state voters say the law has had no effect on their family, and 69% say the same thing nationwide. More voters say the law has hurt them than say it has helped. A plurality of voters nationwide and in swing states say they think Obama’s health care law will make things worse for their families. In swing states, 53% of voters say they would support repealing the law.

Recall what Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in late 2009 as Senate Democrats were jamming their health care bill through the Senate and cutting off amendments: “When people see what is in this bill and when people see what it does, they will come around.”

With the Supreme Court set to hear arguments in March on the constitutionality of the Democrat health care law’s mandate that every person buy health insurance, the USA Today/Gallup Poll finds huge majorities of voters consider that mandate unconstitutional. Nationwide, 75% consider it unconstitutional, and 76% in swing states agree.

In its own analysis of national numbers, Gallup writes, “Americans overwhelmingly believe the ‘individual mandate,’ as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%. Even a majority of Democrats, and a majority of those who think the healthcare law is a good thing, believe that provision is unconstitutional.”

Meanwhile, the law is still falling short of the predictions and promises Democrats made when it passed. The Washington Post reported last week, “Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care law’s high-risk insurance pools are expected to more than double initial predictions, the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program. . . . Those who have enrolled in the program are projected to have significantly higher medical costs than the government initially expected. . . . The costs also are significantly higher than those of similar high-risk pools that many states have operated for decades.”

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said recently when Republican senators released their latest amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of the Democrats’ health care law, “The Democrats’ 2,700 page health spending bill represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and we hope the Supreme Court will do the same.”Tags:Us House, Us Senate, Washington, D.C, judicial nominee, Gallup Poll, Obamacare, individual mandate, repeal the bill unconstitutional bill, SCOTUS, amicus briefTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.

Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.